>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:08:24 -0400,
>>>>> "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Your wording works for me well. Good suggestion too.
Thanks, glad to hear that. But please let me check one thing: do you
have any preference between the solutions? That is,
>> 1. remove "stateful" from the definition of the O flag (in
>> rfc2461bis), [...]
>> and reword rfc2462bis accordingly.
or
>> 2. do not touch the definition of the O flag, but add notes for
>> clarification in rfc2462bis like this:
[snip]
I guess you meant solution 2 by "wording", but I'm not really sure.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
